TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Timothy Takemoto on June 04, 2013, 01:32:28 AM
-
As a couple of YouTube users (Matt Haight and racheepoo9) have noted, recent aerial photographs of the Seven Site, by TIGHAR and Google Satellite images look very much like a capital "A" rather than a "7".
One of the reasons given against the Gardener (Nikumaroro) Island hypothesis is that Amelia Earhart would have been seen by the 1937 aerial search but as Ric Gillespie points out ( http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8?t=5m14s ) that was flown at 400ft, a height at which humans would be very difficult to see.
However, from the opposite perspective, it seems likely to me that had Amelia Earhart been on the island at the time of the search, there is every likelihood that she would have been aware of the plane. Assuming that she was there it must have been very frustrating, attempting to get a smokey fire going, attempting to set up a flag etc.
Thus, had Amelia Earhart been on the island, especially after the frustration of not having been seen in an initial search, she would have put considerable effort into creating a sign of her presence on the Island. Of course she could have died too soon, been too weak, or simply failed in the attempt. But had she been on the Island, especially since she was an aviator, one would expect her to create a sign indicating her presence, at a size large enough to been seen at altitude from a similar search planet.
What would it be? "ELP ME" had been suggested. An alphabetical message seems likely. Seeing as how her name was Amelia, what is more likely, indeed what else, than a capital "A", Amelia's A (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nihonbunka/8944130905/in/photostream)?
The earlier aerial photo (http://"http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8?t=9m42s") (still (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/1938det.jpg)) from 1938 looks more like a "7" but also possibly an A since at least, there appears to be dots which if joined would form the cross bar of the A on the "7," and this bar may have been visible had the photo been taken from a different angle.
The "A" might explain why the castaway relocated to that spot which may have and a natural clearing that could be adapted to one of the simplest, and yet obviously anthropogenic symbols.
I think it is a nice idea anyway and fortuitous or not, the "Amelia's A" can be found on Google Maps Satellite image by anyone. Spot the "A" ! http://tinyurl.com/ameliasa
-
Have thought the same thing...and the view from the helicopter on that ride with the tuna spotter seems that way also, if you look at that.
But I think that has been suggested in the past and been dismissed due to circumstances of which i am unaware or have forgotten...
Maybe now that it has popped up again the explanation will be repeated.
I am still curious about it.
Bill
-
Thanks yes. The A was spotted by those watching the TIGHAR video of from the Tuna spotter helicopter
This is from the tuna spotter in the TIGHAR Aerial Tour of Nikumaroro video (http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8?t=9m39s) ( at time 9 minutes and 39 seconds )
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/ameliasa3.jpg)
This is from the 1938 aerial image in the same video (http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8?t=9m42s) at 9 minutes 42 seconds
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/ameliasa2.jpg)
And this is from Google Maps Satellite view (http://www.tinyurl.com/ameliasa)
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/ameliasa.jpg)
And this image, with the "A" clearing in view on the right hand side, is from the Approaching the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6plandetails.html) taken prior to the excavation in 2010
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/sevenplan1.jpg)
And another clearly visible "A" from the NikuVI PIPA report p2 (http://"http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives//Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/Niku6PIPAreportpage2.html")
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives//Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/PIPAimages/Satelliteseven.jpg)
And even the black and white 1939 aerial "7" seems to have a little bit of "A" (cross bar) to the seven
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/1939.jpg)
By the way, how likely is it that Gerald Gallagher's loggers put a line of corrugated iron to facilitate rolling logs? It seems a lot of trouble to go to for little advantage. In what direction was the line of the corrugated iron? The top of the "7"? The Stick of the "7" or the bar of the "A." If someone were attempting to transform a naturally occurring clearing and trying to turn it into a symbol they might add man made beach combed bits (iron) to add straightness and artificiality.
Also, it is cool that the image from Google Maps (http://tinyurl.com/ameliasa) it is almost perfectly orientated: an "A" the right way up! Are Google maps images facing North-towards-the-top? I think that they may well be. If I were going to cut my initial into a jungle I would want to orientated it with the compass in this way to increase the changes that it be recognized.
And I would like to reiterate the reverse engineered motivational analysis (for lack of better Jargon).
Assuming that Amelia Earhart
1) survived on the island for a while (how long based on the remains?)
2) was active, proactive, a survivor
3) was an aviator with plenty of experience of (and ability to imagine/see) how things look from above
4) had experienced an abortive rescue in the form of a plane fly over, which did not spot her
5) knew how isolated the island was and how the only likely visitors would be by air
Then, on any island where the above 5 suppositions are true (other than the first, they are all no-brainers), one would strongly expect AE to
1) Have located herself near to prominent features that would attract attention from the air
2) Have at least attempted to make a sign visible from the 400 feet of a plane
3) Have made that sign indicate human presence and
4) Have made that sign indicate her own (word famous, important, people on the look out for) presence.
5) Have located herself beside any naturally occurring terrain feature that, by some stroke of luck, would suggest her presence.
What sign would Amelia Earhart she have made or chosen to indicate her presence to aviators? It seems to me that, considering the points above, one might almost reach the conclusion that.....
If there were not a large "A" on the island then Amelia Earhart was not there!
But there is an "A" clearly visible even to this day!! :-)
Bearing in mind that one can very plausibly and honestly claim that this looks like an "A", calling the site "Site A" or "Amelia's A" (instead of "Site 7") just seems like good marketing, with a view to raising funds to send that sub down to see the newly found underwater remains. This was not my idea.
-
Having been absent for a while, and just re-familiarizing myself with current events, I'd like to reply to this.
The Lambrecht overflight was 9 days after the disappearance. If in fact AE DID land on the northwest reef, as is suspected, she had several days in pretty bad conditions to hike a couple of miles, then clear out something that looked like a '7" , or an "A" as you suppose. I say bad conditions as being, on a deserted Island, with little provisions; early july very near the equator so it was hot, and hiking through scavola (?) several miles to a spot she thinks is better than where she was, to carve out a pretty good sized area. With what tools? Ric and Co. on a early expedition hacked their way through with machetes. Took a WHILE. Later trip, used saws or something else they brought. took a WHILE. Amelia had ---we think-- a pocket knife.
Think about it.
-
Tim,
you only have to look at the images to see that there are many varied shapped clear areas on the island. In the fly past Ric even comments about these.
Nice idea but like Tom says you'r going to need the right tools for the job.
-
The "seven" is a natural feature. As Chris correctly points out, there are many such bare spots in the vegetation in a wide variety of random shapes. Any area that is cleared by humans soon grows back. (Ask me how I know. :-\)
-
My last attempt to modify my post resulted above in "This must be approved by a moderator" so I will assume that it is to be moderated, and I hope it will be accepted.
Yes, your posts are being moderated because you have not provided your real name (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,379.0.html).
I have put the body of your post in a private message to you. You may resubmit your post AFTER you provide your real name in your user profile.
Thanks.
-
Yes, "the seven" may well be a natural feature.
What features, natural or otherwise, on the island are prominent from the air? Are there many? Are many, or any of them seemingly artificial? Why did the castaway choose that spot, choose to die at the centre of that spot?
If I were a castaway that had experience a flyover, and if I especially I were an aviator castaway that had experience of looking down on things from the air, I would find and locate myself in the most prominent of these natural features, that looked most unnatural, most like a sign. Are there others other than the "7" (it is given an unnatural name)?
On google maps satellite view now there seem to be few other man-made-looking features on the whole island.
Bearing in mind the "7" appellation used by Tighar to designate the site, it is one of the few sites on the island that gives itself a name because it is similar to a human symbol. And yet it also looks like a "A," the human symbol perhaps most likely to have been used by someone called Amelia, aware of her fame.
I am certainly not suggesting that AE made the "7" (or "A") prior to the Lambrecht flyover. She would have been more likely to have been camped nearer the wreck of her plane at that time. The jungle is very difficult to clear. It would certainly have taken longer than 9 days. I am suggesting, however, that especially because she had been missed by the Lambrecht flyover that she would have put great effort into creating a man-made-looking sign that would be viewable from subsequent flyovers.
Was the line of iron (corrugated?) along the line of the head of the seven, stem of the seven or cross of the A, or elsewhere?
Is it clear that crossbar of the A, clearly visible in the photos above, is also a natural feature?
And even if the "A" is an entirely natural feature, if you were Amelia, where on the island would you camp?
-
Thus, had Amelia Earhart been on the island, especially after the frustration of not having been seen in an initial search, she would have put considerable effort into creating a sign of her presence on the Island. Of course she could have died too soon, been too weak, or simply failed in the attempt. But had she been on the Island, especially since she was an aviator, one would expect her to create a sign indicating her presence, at a size large enough to been seen at altitude from a similar search planet.
What would it be?
It would be a giant arrow complete with a tail, just north of the seven site, pointing directly at the seven site, made by removing vegetation and leaving the highly visible white coral and coral sand clearly visible to aircraft. It is brightly visible in the 1938 photo.
In all later photos it is not visible. In all early photos, it is not visible. It came into existence sometime after the aerial search for Amelia and before the 1938 photo - exactly the time when we think Amelia was there at the seven site.
In my amateur opinion, this has been dismissed too easily. The spot was checked on one of the expeditions and dismissed, because there was nothing but coral and sand there, covered with vegetation. But of course, that is exactly what would be there many years later after the vegetation grew back.
There never has been a satisfactory explanation for the giant arrow just north of the seven site in the 1938 photo.
I still think it's quite possible it was a sign to aerial searchers built by Amelia in the weeks after the first search failed to spot her.
-
In my amateur opinion, this has been dismissed too easily. The spot was checked on one of the expeditions and dismissed, because there was nothing but coral and sand there, covered with vegetation. But of course, that is exactly what would be there many years later after the vegetation grew back.
We went to the spot (a real b--ch to get to BTW). There was nothing there except a bare patch of coral. We swept it thoroughly with metal detectors. Nothing. In your amateur opinion what should we have done?
-
In my amateur opinion, this has been dismissed too easily. The spot was checked on one of the expeditions and dismissed, because there was nothing but coral and sand there, covered with vegetation. But of course, that is exactly what would be there many years later after the vegetation grew back.
We went to the spot (a real b--ch to get to BTW). There was nothing there except a bare patch of coral. We swept it thoroughly with metal detectors. Nothing. In your amateur opinion what should we have done?
Nothing - you did everything you could do.
I just think it's plausible the arrow was really there at the time of the 1938 photo because it doesn't have any of the indicators of a photo anomaly and it certainly looks man-made (or woman-made). That would point to Amelia being there and removing vegetation in order to make a sign that would be visible from the air (as suggested in this thread).
I just think it shouldn't be discounted as possibly made by the castaways. Not sure if one would expect for metal to be there, but it was a good idea to sweep it. But just because no metal was found doesn't mean the castaways did not build it. There would really be no remaining sign of it having been cleared in summer 1937.
But the fact that it was not there before and it was not there afterwards, does seem to indicate it was created right at the time we think Amelia was there.
Truth is we may never know, since clearing the vegetation would not leave much evidence, if any. I'm just saying it should not be dismissed just because you did not find any indications, since one would not expect to find much evidence in this case.
It really does look like an arrow made by the castaways.
What are the odds of an arrow being there at that time, and only at that time, in that particular spot, 50 yards from where we think Amelia was stranded? And if it was just a random natural feature, why did it not last like the 7 shape lasted? Why was it right there and not somewhere else on the island? Even the fact that it was pointing to the seven site and not some other random direction like out to sea or whatever, suggests that it is what it appears to be. Just figuring the odds, it seems to point to possibly being made by the castaways.
-
Well, I see your reasoning, but it seems odd that AE and perhaps FN would go that far away and go to all that trouble to make an arrow rather than carve out some attention getting shape right where they were. Anyway, if the arrow was intended to direct an aircraft's attention to the Seven Site, it didn't work. There's no indication that the crew of the Royal Navy Supermarine Walrus from HMS Leander who took the photo paid any special attention to the Seven Site. Of course by December 1938 when the photo was taken, Earhart was probably dead.
-
Well, I see your reasoning, but it seems odd that AE and perhaps FN would go that far away and go to all that trouble to make an arrow rather than carve out some attention getting shape right where they were. Anyway, if the arrow was intended to direct an aircraft's attention to the Seven Site, it didn't work. There's no indication that the crew of the Royal Navy Supermarine Walrus from HMS Leander who took the photo paid any special attention to the Seven Site.
I'm thinking they would try to find a place for their signal that already had a dark surrounding such as dark vegetation which also contained an area of already exposed (or easier to expose) white coral. The location of the arrow I believe is the nearest place to the seven site which had those characteristics. If they tried to make the signal at the seven site it would not stand out because large areas are already exposed (or only thinly covered with vegetation). I believe in those days the scavolae had not yet severely overgrown that area like the situation there today. It was also the beginning months of the 1937-38 drought, so it may have been easier to remove the vegetation (and there would be less of it).
This is all conjecture of course, and I may be dreaming, but I swear I see a "game trail" leading from the arrow down to the seven site, a few feet inland from the ocean beach. I remember reading an article on here about several so-called trails in the area, most of which I can't see or can only barely see. But the main trail leading down from the arrow to the seven site is pretty darn clear. Of course, by the time of the 1938 photo, it was in the hottest part of the 1938 drought so the trails could be something caused by dryness or something else, but it sure does look like a game trail. Since there's no "game" on Niku, it could only be crabs or humans making the trail. And if the castaways were indeed building the arrow sign, it would make sense that the most-worn trail would be the one leading from the arrow down to the seven site.
I'm not clear on what direction the search planes approached Niku, only that they ran down off the eastern shore and then headed to the Norwich City area. Obviously they were over the seven site on one of the passes because we have a photo of it (sans arrow incidentally). If Amelia saw the planes approaching and flying over the seven site (possibly on more than one pass), or even if she just noted that they came from the east, it would make sense for her to build the sign in that area, and also to stay near that area in case planes arrived again (and also to constantly keep a fire going for signalling, which she apparently did based on all the different fire sites in the seven site).
It's true that by the 1938 photo, when the arrow is still very visible, nobody thought anything about it. But if another plane search had been ordered, say, 3 weeks or a month after the first one, and the searchers were specifically looking for Amelia, that arrow would have stuck out like a sore thumb, and the searchers would find it curious, and they would have looked at where the arrow pointed - the seven site, and they would have found Amelia (alive or not-so-lucky).
It's fun to play "what-if's", but what if somebody had looked over the Lambrecht report and saw the notation about recent habitation and asked someone else about recent habitation on Gardner, and found out there was no recent habitation on Gardner, and convinced the powers-that-be to go look at that island one more time just to be sure. That arrow would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
Or what if the powers-that-be had believed some of the radio reports, and triangulated them to the vicinity of Gardner and sent more planes just to check it out one more time. That arrow would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
Well, you get the idea.
I'm pretty sure Amelia would have at least tried to make a signal of some sort after not being spotted in a 15-minute flyover - that must have been indescribably heart-breaking. She would have hoped beyond hope that planes would come again and I think she would have tried to be prepared by making a sign of some sort. In the 1938 photo, we see something that looks pretty convincingly like a sign - the arrow formation. Did Amelia or Amelia and Fred build the arrow formation? We will never know. But I like to think they did - I can't imagine them sitting at the seven site and not building a sign of some sort, but who knows? Just getting enough water to survive would be incredibly difficult and draining so maybe they didn't have the energy.
If they did build it, it's just too bad that nobody ever got to see it until the search was long over. The energy they (possibly) put into it was wasted. Would building the arrow have drained them so much that their survival time was shortened? It's a good possibility. But they made the right choice to build it (if they did), based on their not being spotted in the first search. I think most people in the same situation would have done the same thing.
-
Wow you are right! There is a very pronounced arrow! It looks a bit like the arrow that I added to Google Satellite! I agree with Charlie Chisholm's last post entirely.
Leader Ric Gillespie wrote " it seems odd that AE and perhaps FN would go that far away and go to all that trouble to make an arrow rather than carve out some attention getting shape right where they were. "
I can't think of anything more visible than an arrow pointing at a naturally occurring "A," as partially demonstrated by the fact that an arrow is exactly what I added to the "A" to make it visible above. Making the arrow may have been very time consuming but if Amelia found the A, and was able to visualize what it would look like from above, then she may well have saved the energy of making a symbol (what better than A) as well as an arrow to make it stand out.
Has that arrow been investigated? I.e. did someone check to see if there was sign of human interference in that region?
There should have been a sign. They would have tried to make one. And it looks like they did. Seen at last, thank God almighty, her sign was seen at last :-)
The seven site needs to be called the "A site" a for Amelia, A for arrow.
I am not sure what to make of bing maps.
http://binged.it/18Sz3BZ
I guess it is the TIGHAR excavations.
-
Has that arrow been investigated? I.e. did someone check to see if there was sign of human interference in that region?
Ric was there personally on a previous expedition. They carefully calculated the location of the arrow and had to hack their way in to the area. Scaevola has severely invaded the area in recent decades and getting to anything is very difficult. But they got to the location and found nothing but bare white coral under the scaevola. They ran a metal detector over the entire area and found nothing. I believe at the time the theory was that if it was a marker it was probably made of coral blocks or sand brought in from the beach (I'm going by memory here). Since they didn't find coral blocks or sand artificially brought in, and didn't find any metal, they kind of concluded that it wasn't a marker.
Prior to that expedition, there was plenty of talk and speculation about it being a marker, including photo analysis of "trails" made by the castaways. The only real viable trails to my eye are the trail from the seven site to the clam bed in the lagoon (which remains a very viable and exciting possibility), and the trail from the seven site to the arrow. Several others were pointed out but I have trouble seeing them (or I see them and they just look like other bare ground around the seven site and not necessarily a trail). The trail to the lagoon is pretty clear and the trail to the arrow is very clear. Those two trails led over ground with vegetation on it and the ground is bare only on the trail in those areas, so they really do look like trails made by humans. The trail to the arrow is easily visible in the 1938 photo - just start at the point of the arrow and you'll see a thin jagged winding trail leading down and over to the right towards the beach. It then heads straight down parallel to the beach (although still in the vegetation), but it is definitely winding, not a straight line like the long side of the seven. It goes all the way down to the top of the seven (or A). There is still an article on here somewhere with that info in it including pictures and drawings of where they believe the trails were.
But ever since the expedition concluded that the arrow wasn't man-made, the issue hasn't been discussed much at all. My theory is that they didn't do anything artificial to make the ground white, like bringing in sand or coral block. They just found an area of exposed coral already in existence, or an area of coral where vegetation would be easier to remove, and expanded it into the shape of an arrow. Even the fact that the expedition found bare coral under the scaevola, and not soil or short vegetation, or anything a dark color, supports the possibility that in 1937 that area may have been the best place to remove vegetation in order to make a sign for search parties.
There was some discussion about it being a photo anomaly, but that dog doesn't hunt. You can see trees or shrubs silhouetted against the white coral on the edge closest to the camera, but the edges on the far sides are smooth - exactly what you would expect if it's really there and not some kind of photo anomaly. The tail of the arrow is also a different color. So whether it was man-made or natural, that arrow was definitely there in 1938 (and at no time before or since that we know of). There was an area of no vegetation at that location, and it was in the shape of an ARROW pointing to the seven site; and there is a clear trail leading from the seven site directly to it. That's pretty convincing evidence in my view.
But hey - it could have been a naturally made arrow. The trail could have been made by crabs and not humans. Maybe the crabs built the arrow!
-
Ric was there personally on a previous expedition. They carefully calculated the location of the arrow and had to hack their way in to the area. Scaevola has severely invaded the area in recent decades and getting to anything is very difficult. But they got to the location and found nothing but bare white coral under the scaevola.
I'm not sure what "the arrow." I think you're describing the "G Feature." (http://tighar.org/wiki/G_feature)
-
I'm not sure what "the arrow." I think you're describing the "G Feature." (http://tighar.org/wiki/G_feature)
I am not sure what arrow Charlie is referring to. Charlie, thanks for your post above. Please would you be so kind as to tell me which arrow you are seeing and ideally also give a link to the photo you are looking at?
I am seeing an arrow in the 1938 photo from the TIGHAR video above, ringed below
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/ameliasarrow.jpg)
But as for the "G," you have got to be kidding me!
Bearing in mind it is next to a giant "A" and you are looking for someone called Amelia Earhart, what letter would you think it would be?!
First of all Google images for Amelia Earhart signature (https://www.google.com/search?q=amelia+earhart+signature&num=100&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=wImxUeLKEYWdiAee0YHYDg&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=855)
And then compare the "G" with the characteristic way in which Amelia Earhart wrote her second initial (please see below). In the second row of her "E"s, I have removed the line that she used to Join her E to her first name.
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/AmeliasE.jpg)
A giant "A" emphasised by a giant arrow, and nearby a "E," shaped in the way that Amelia Earhart wrote her Initial E, made of hundreds of little pieces of white coral.
Could it be that someone was trying to send you a message? I don't suppose it was for an aeroplane. This is starting to make me want to cry. Think of how she must of felt when she wrote it.
Did you dig in the "backfill hole" and or under the E? It is clear from your description that some digging has gone on there. If she was going to have left a message, that would be where it would be buried. Someone give me a spade and a boat.
-
I'm not sure what "the arrow." I think you're describing the "G Feature." (http://tighar.org/wiki/G_feature)
No, not the little G feature - the big arrow north of the seven site in the 1938 Supermarine Walrus photo.
-
Charlie, thanks for your post above. Please would you be so kind as to tell me which arrow you are seeing and ideally also give a link to the photo you are looking at?
I am seeing an arrow in the 1938 photo from the TIGHAR video above, ringed below
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/ameliasarrow.jpg)
Yes, what you have circled.
-
First of all Google images for Amelia Earhart signature (https://www.google.com/search?q=amelia+earhart+signature&num=100&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=wImxUeLKEYWdiAee0YHYDg&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=855)
And then compare the "G" with the characteristic way in which Amelia Earhart wrote her second initial (please see below). In the second row of her "E"s, I have removed the line that she used to Join her E to her first name.
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/AmeliasE.jpg)
A giant "A" emphasised by a giant arrow, and nearby a "E," shaped in the way that Amelia Earhart wrote her Initial E, made of hundreds of little pieces of white coral.
The resemblance is uncanny, but I think they have some indication the G feature is actually a hole for a coconut tree during a planting project. Not sure how sure they were, but I think that was the conclusion at the time. They had some kind of indication like somebody that had been on the island at the time of the colony or something knew where the holes were or something like that. Someone would have to search Ameliapedia for "G feature".
-
I see Martin has posted a link on the G feature above already, and if you go to that page there is another link at the bottom with a summary of it being a coconut tree hole. And somewhere deep in this site there is more info, like details about the 1941 planting operation or something like that. I think they said the size and shape of the hole is identical with the other planting holes, so they were pretty darn sure it was a hole for the planting project, but I had forgotten about the single layer of white coral rocks forming the G.
If it is indeed on top of a hole dug in 1941 it can't be Amelia's handiwork. But yeah, it does look like her squiggly capital E. Somebody obviously took some time and effort to make that symbol, we just don't know who it was or what it is supposed to mean. It is, of course, possible that it is not a 1941 hole, just similar to one. In that case, one can imagine it was her.
-
I'm not sure what "the arrow." I think you're describing the "G Feature." (http://tighar.org/wiki/G_feature)
Please would you be so kind as to give a link to the photo you are looking at?
Here is a link to a small version of the original photo, a preliminary discussion of the trails, and a better picture of the trail leading up the the arrow (at that time called the "T-shaped sandy area"): http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/trails.pdf (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/trails.pdf)
Note in the un-enlarged picture from the plane, the arrow feature is easily visible on the right side of the island about half-way up (well it's not half way up the island, it just looks that way from that angle).
-
Come on...spades a go go!
There is another discrepancy to the TIGHAR hypothesis (other than the Gallagher Paradox) in that, by the same logic as you (Charlie Chisholm) pointed out, that there would have been a sign for planes since she was intelligent, distressed by having been not seen and, a herself pilot..... by similar logic, thinking about how she must have felt, as she faded off this mortal coil, there is something else missing.
She was world famous and dying. She was leaving behind a husband and millions of fans. What person like her, alone in that situation would not leave a message? So where is the message? Someone asked about carvings in the trees (and that is a good start) but if she had a pen knife, or some rouge, and some plexiglass, i.e. effectively a pen and piece of paper, then she would have left a message. Surely....If I understand her feelings at all then, I would say: no message, no Amelia. So okay, the message has not been found yet.
But it seems it has. There is her very characteristic "E" initial next to a hole. Next to a hole. Say it slowly. Amelia's "E," next, to, a hole.
I am of the opinion that one hole in the ground looks very much like another so the fact that it resembles the coconut tree holes doesn't make it any less dig worthy.
Spaaaade!
The only other thing I can think of without going there is, if it was Earhart's E, then there would have been a depression in the center of the upper part of that so called "G," somewhere in the area marked in red below, since the upper area would be the top too prongs of the E smudged together. If there was a depression in that area of the "G" (!), I don't think that I need a spade.
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/AmeiliasE2.jpg)
Was there a depression?
Thank you very much for the better, clear picture of the ARROW (T!!) with the track joining it to the "A".
I went for a bicycle ride and had a thought about this. Maybe on another thread I will write about the "madness" that makes us interested in finding Amelia Earhart but in brief, as Ric has said, we do it because it is a wonderful, wonderfully romantic story. I am not going to be able to go there, so there is nothing in it for me but the story is beautiful and there are two things that, while riding my bike, it occurred to me to add.
1) First of all it is entirely appropriate that Amelia should have used this symbol.
Amelia was famous. She flew planes, and then gave talks about flying planes. She did it over and over again. She was a pilot pop star, and perhaps, in the immortal words of Lady Gaga, a fame monster. She loved her fans. She loved being loved. But of course, not everyone in the world loved her. She was intelligent enough to know that many people in the world would not know her from Adam. She was intelligent enough to know that a few South Sea Islanders (if that is the right term) might know her so little, love her so less, that they might put her bones in a bag and throw the them overboard into the sea, in case those bones brought bad luck.
When she wrote her "E," she knew that it was too small for any plane to see. It was a message to someone to find. Obviously if anyone came when she was still alive she'd be able to given her message first hand, so her "E" and anything buried beside or beneath it, was message to someone that would come after she is dead, a last will and testament, a legacy, a kind of lover letter.
It was not as if she was burying treasure. She had no gold bars. Far from it. She may at best have had a piece of paper in a bottle. Or a piece of scratched plexiglass. Now, had she left a big "X" or even a recognisable letter, then there would be a good, or better, chance that someone digs up said bottle or plexiglass and thinks "Damn no treasure," "What is this message saying 'Dear George, I love you, I am sorry about Fred...'" Their reaction would be, "splash", as they throw the message into the lagoon. The thing about last wills and testaments, about any messages that people send knowingly into the abyss into the absence, into the impossibility of a response, is that they send them in the hope that the message reaches someone that loves them.
That is beauty of Amelia's "E". I like to think that it was sent to those that love her. Not to some Kiribati fisherman that might happen to walk past, but someone who came searching for her. In my film script, in the story I see in my mind, as she piled up hundreds of white coral pieces in the shape of her "E," she was intelligent enough, famous enough, and beautiful (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1400&bih=884&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=amelia+earhart&oq=amelia+earhart&gs_l=img.3..0l10.9219.9219.0.9438.1.1.0.0.0.0.108.108.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c..16.img.LWSKE4Gz5oo) enough to know that one day, there would be someone who would come searching, and see her sign, and say, "Yes! That is Amelia!" And it was to people like that, people like us, that she sent her message. She knew we would not throw her message away.
If so, isn't that a beautiful story?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Amelia_earhart.jpeg)
I think that one of the reasons she is so beautiful is because she had slight exotropia (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotropia) (non convergent strabismus).
2) This is just waffle but...The "Gallagher Paradox" preys on my mind.
If there really was a plane wreck in the bay, then why wasn't Gallagher sure that he had found AE? If there were two sets of bones, one a man's another a woman's (as in the Kilts version of events) then why wasn't he 200% percent sure. And what happened to the other, Kilts narrated, set of bones? A possibility occurs to me that, perhaps Gallagher did know of the plane in the bay. Perhaps he did find two sets of bones. Perhaps he did dig around the A site to find evidence -- what is up with digging up trees over there anyway? Weird. And perhaps, bearing in mind that this was only a few years after the disappearance, he wanted the glory. Was there a reward? Did he write less than he knew in his correspondence up the chain of command? Did he dig up whatever hand been left there? Did the Kiribati folk bury what he had found? The possibilities are endless.
-
As far as the "G" feature, and here's really going out on a limb, looks like someone was killing time in their depression and making a pretty picture of the only remaining part of the Electra (their life). Looks like the landing gear with the worm gear to me. Man I hope this limb doesn't break...it's a long fall!
-
I wish I had time to correct the many inaccuracies and misconceptions in this thread. Briefly:
• We don't have a good explanation for the "arrow" in the 1938 photo. We went there in 2007 and found nothing unusual. Believers will construct a hundred reasons why it must have been made by Amelia. Skeptics will dismiss it as a natural feature.
• The "trails" in the same photo are, to me, more intriguing because they resemble known trails. See Not-So-Happy Trails (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/trails.pdf)
• The G Feature (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2001Vol_17/newmystery.pdf) is another fascinating puzzle. There was a coconut planting operation in that area circa 1941which involved the digging of shallow holes. The G Feature was not in one of those depressions. It is visible from the air and may be visible in the 1938 photo. You can see it in the 2001 Aerial Tour video but we didn't notice it at that time. I found and photographed the G Feature in 2007 but when I went back to that spot in 2010 it was gone - which seemed very strange. We could only suppose that the churning of the coral rubble from vegetation growth during the three years between trips obliterated the feature - but that's not a very satisfactory explanation. It may be that I was simply looking in the wrong place. In fact, in the latest and best satellite image of the island there are some white pixels that just might be the G Feature.
-
I have a hard time telling how serious discussion on this thread is.
This image is from nearby Kanton Island from google maps, I assume Kanton has similar vegetation and soil. Either Amelia got around more than most of us suspect or these "letter" shapes are just natural variations in the density if the trees and brush
-
I have a hard time telling how serious discussion on this thread is.
Not very ... at least in terms of the shapes of naturally-occurring patches of bare coral. The "trails" in the 1938 photo are interesting but there's no way to tell whether they too are natural or man-made.
The G Feature, on the other hand, is just downright weird. It's real. It's certainly a deliberate and quite labor-intensive human artifact. We've never been able to make sense of it.
-
I have a hard time telling how serious discussion on this thread is.
Matt, the "A" is all very well and obvious. But isn't the "E" just as important? And the two together in the same picture is, well, dynamite!
-
Actually Tim there is another E here
-
And another sign here
-
And there was a castaway on Canton? Human bones? Hand cream from the 1930's? And those bones were found where these marks were found? And in addition to the naturally occurring "A" on Canton, was that where similar artefacts where found? And was there a pile of hundreds of pieces of coral that were piled up, seen even in 1938, obviously human made, not in the shape of any "E", but in the way that Amelia Earhart wrote the initial of her second name?
As Tom King said in a video (Any idiot artefact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zpMNNIY0Vk)) it is the combination of evidence.
I am having difficulty wondering if TIGHAR believes that Amelia Earhart was on Nikumaroro at all. If she was there she would have left marks. If you find a giant "A" sign right at the place where you find the bones that you presume to be hers, if you find a pile of coral making a letter, her letter, right by the the same spot then....
You can think "That makes sense, because Amelia Earhart was here, and would have made them, and positioned her self near such marks." Or you can make jokes about it. Go for it. I think they are funny too.
I found and photographed the G Feature in 2007 but when I went back to that spot in 2010 it was gone - which seemed very strange.
Gone! :'(
If you really can't find it, I hope she haunts you.
Am I joking?
-
As Tom King said in a video (Any idiot artefact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zpMNNIY0Vk)) it is the combination of evidence.
That is why it's so frustrating to me about my Arrow theory. They found nothing at the site and we are not likely to ever find anything to show they built it. So I am left with trying to build a case with a combination of evidence and then see if it holds water. I guess it would have been easier if they had used machete's to clear the brush and had left one behind on the site :)
So far I have a bunch of things pointing to the possibility, like how the arrow was there only during that time, the trail that leads to it, the likelihood they would try to build a sign, etc. I'm going to do more research but I am having difficulty finding information on this website that I saw earlier. For example the drawing of the seven site with the trails drawn in, including the one going to the lagoon, the notation before the expedition to the arrow telling what they expected to find there, the information about why they thought the G formation was associated directly with the 1941 tree planting program (if it was), etc.
I am going to stop relying on my memory as it has already been shown to be inaccurate with just the little bit I've said already. For example, I remember the G formation being on top of a hole, but now it sounds like it was not. I remember speculation about what the castaways may have built the arrow with, but I can't find the reference to verify what I remember about it being coral blocks or sand or whatever. What they were expecting to find likely affected the conclusion made in 2007 that it wasn't made by the castaways so I really need to find that info.
I've read just about everything there is to read on here in the last couple years (except older forum posts that are not referenced elsewhere), but that is a heck of a lot of information, so some bits are bound to drop into the wrong slot occasionally. I really need to find the original sources on here but the search engine is only picking up common terms and not searching deeply. The main points are all covered, but the detailed info is hard to find. I imagine it would need to be fully cataloged in order for a modern search engine to work its magic. But that would be a huge project costing probably tens of thousand of dollars if done by a private company. We have more pressing needs right now, like turning Richie's Anomaly into a Lockheed Electra!
-
We have more pressing needs right now, like turning Richie's Anomaly into a Lockheed Electra!
Charlie, this is not what is really contemplated by the notion of "scientific method".
-
Timothy & Charlie
The path's you follow lead to no were, I know from experience, And Know first hand you could find Amelia or Fred's passports at the seven site, But is that evidence ? Not really as it could have washed up on beach or got to Niku numerous way's.
Even if the Sonar Anomaly turn's out to be the Electra there is people who will still say it never landed there but floated there, from were they think the plane went down.
The search for Amelia is unique for me, As it is on par with the moon landing's even though there is concrete proof they landed on the moon, People still say it never happened .
Tighar go on searching for Amelia, Not because of the nay-sayers, But because Tighar feel the overwhelming evidence fall's just short of what they would expect to see as proof them selves
Thank's Richie
-
We have more pressing needs right now, like turning Richie's Anomaly into a Lockheed Electra!
Charlie, this is not what is really contemplated by the notion of "scientific method".
That was my tongue-in-cheek way of saying we need to fund an expedition to find out if Richie's Anomaly is indeed a Lockheed Electra.
Did I bite my cheek while my tongue was in there?
Or maybe I need to bite my tongue ;D
-
The path's you follow lead to no were, I know from experience, And Know first hand you could find Amelia or Fred's passports at the seven site, But is that evidence ? Not really as it could have washed up on beach or got to Niku numerous way's.
Even if the Sonar Anomaly turn's out to be the Electra there is people who will still say it never landed there but floated there, from were they think the plane went down.
The search for Amelia is unique for me, As it is on par with the moon landing's even though there is concrete proof they landed on the moon, People still say it never happened .
Tighar go on searching for Amelia, Not because of the nay-sayers, But because Tighar feel the overwhelming evidence fall's just short of what they would expect to see as proof them selves
I think I'm going to do it the old-fashioned way - just open documents and read them, one by one. Eventually I will come across the info I need. And then I will be sure bookmark them!
Would be cool to find their passports, though - that would certainly be enough for me! Heck, just any part of the Electra with a part number on would be good enough for me....
This whole project is incredibly fascinating. I applaud Tighar for their work.
Speaking of that, I am very glad the main naysayers from a few months ago are now gone...
Congratulations to Ric and crew for excellent management on that issue. This is now a much nicer place...
-
Charlie
"That is why it's so frustrating to me about my Arrow theory."
I can appreciate your frustration. I wonder if there might still be bushes with cut marks in them at the edges of the arrow. Unlikely I guess, but not impossible if the bushes were still alive with deformation.
"They found nothing at the site and we are not likely to ever find anything to show they built it."
The "G" (or rather Amelia Earhart's E) was on the backfill from a hole adjacent to it. In other words -- if I understand correctly -- someone dug a hole making a pile of earth, then almost filled the hole back up but left some of the earth over in a low mound. A mound is often left over when you refill a hole because you can't pack it in as well as it was before you dug it up. Then the same person, or someone else made this mark
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/AmeliasE.jpg)
next to the hole on top of the "backfill" the residue earth that would not go back into the hole. This suggests strongly to me that the hole and the mark are connected, as if the "G" or "E" were marking the hole.
The hole could have been one of the ones that Gallagher had dug in which case it had nothing to do with Amelia but why would he or anyone after him have gone to the trouble of piling up hundreds of little pieces of white coral? It is the sort of thing that a child might do, but Gallagher and those after him had access to concrete, posts, paint. And for my money, it looks more like Amelia Earhart's "E" than a G bearing in mind the thickness of the top of the "G." Few people, other than her would have been able to create Earhart's E, in the time before google images.
Even though (for unfathomable reasons) the "G" has gone a way, TIGHAR knows where the hole was. So unless the reason why the G has disappeared is because someone has already dug up what there is to dig up, what ever was buried there remains buried. I think that if one did find passports, or anything else obviously connected (and ideally documentary) with EA then the world would believe that she had been there.
It seems to me that there is a some double-ness to the top part of the "G", or at least an indent into it on the right hand side, which makes it even more likely to be the "E,"
(http://nihonbunka.com/images/AmeliasE3.jpg)
so is getting close to being as documentary as her signature (http://"https://www.google.com/search?q=Amelia+Earhart+Signature&num=100&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WMayUa7eGoSAkwWQqoGIDA&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1400&bih=884"), or at least as I myself need. Game set...
But then if the Anomaly turns out to be the Electra, that will of course be game, set, match. I am happy that it all seems to be turning out okay. I don't want any one to be haunted. Two decades of work should pay off.
-
I can appreciate your frustration. I wonder if there might still be bushes with cut marks in them at the edges of the arrow. Unlikely I guess, but not impossible if the bushes were still alive with deformation.
The castaways didn't have any tools that we know of or that were ever recovered at the seven site (except for broken glass likely used to cut fish and the disassembled knife likely used to spear them). If they removed vegetation, they had to do it manually or by using a combination of manual pulling and leverage from heavy sticks or branches. I suppose burning is also a possibility - it was in the first few months of a drought so the foliage could have been drying out.
The "G" (or rather Amelia Earhart's E) was on the backfill from a hole adjacent to it. In other words -- if I understand correctly -- someone dug a hole making a pile of earth, then almost filled the hole back up but left some of the earth over in a low mound. A mound is often left over when you refill a hole because you can't pack it in as well as it was before you dug it up. Then the same person, or someone else made this mark next to the hole on top of the "backfill" the residue earth that would not go back into the hole. This suggests strongly to me that the hole and the mark are connected, as if the "G" or "E" were marking the hole.
Yes, clearly connected.
And for my money, it looks more like Amelia Earhart's "E" than a G bearing in mind the thickness of the top of the "G."
Yeah it doesn't really look like a G but it doesn't look exactly like one of AE's squiggly E's either. It's would be nice if someone could take your posted examples of her E's and throw them in a photo editor to make the background transparent so you could overlay them over the G symbol and see how close they do match. Far beyond my Photoshop skills, sad to say.
Even though (for unfathomable reasons) the "G" has gone away, TIGHAR knows where the hole was. So unless the reason why the G has disappeared is because someone has already dug up what there is to dig up, what ever was buried there remains buried. I think that if one did find passports, or anything else obviously connected (and ideally documentary) with EA then the world would believe that she had been there.
The G feature may not be gone, it might just be misplaced (it might be there but they just can't find it at the moment - sort of like my keys when I'm in a hurry to get to work). I find it surprising that it hasn't already been excavated, especially since it may be older than the 1941 tree planting project. What if their personal effects are under there? Or even the remains of the first one to perish? If they can find it again, hopefully they will consider excavating it.
-
The castaways didn't have any tools that we know of or that were ever recovered at the seven site (except for broken glass likely used to cut fish and the disassembled knife likely used to spear them). If they removed vegetation, they had to do it manually or by using a combination of manual pulling and leverage from heavy sticks or branches. I suppose burning is also a possibility - it was in the first few months of a drought so the foliage could have been drying out.
Yes... I would still have had a look at the boundaries of the arrow for signs of burning, or using that penknife (i.e. bushes with cuts) but I forensic evidence is unlikely to be found. However, as you state above, the existence of the arrow in 1938, and the "A," even today, is all part, and for me an important part, of the layers of evidence, or pointers, that TIGHAR has found, and makes the whole TIGHAR hypothesis plausible.
I'd like to go over the pointers that I am aware of:
The last radio transmission mentioning a sun line that may (there are nay sayers) have flown over Nikumaroro.
The radio *bearings* by receivers *in the region* four out of five converging on Nikumaroro.
The radio listening by the girl in Florida mentioning "New York City" (that is not something that one would lie about, it is kind of silly) that hints at "Norwich City".
The fact that the more reliable of the radio hearings happened at Nikumaroro's low tide times.
The bones and castaway, indubitably documented by Gallagher and measured, but lost in Fiji.
The double sets of bones, woman's shoe, and cognac bottle in the hearsay via Kilts.
The indubitable signs of recent habitation (presumably the tracks) in the first, 9-days after, fly over.
The Bevington photo object.
The rouge, hand cream, freckle cream, plexiglass, penknife, shoe heel, zip, and non-US army shell casings
The food remains that suggest an non-native castaway - such as the way shells were opened.
The aircraft remains, near to the Norwich City wreck, that more than one (is it two?) inhabitant say they saw (This does create a Gallagher paradox however).
And the recent sonar anomaly, lining up with the Bevington object, and something else (not sure what) that I happened to see reported on CNN.
I have probably missed out on some, but as Tom King says, none of them are enough to convince "any idiot," but they layer up enough to make the TIGHAR hypothesis definitely plausible - a working hypothesis.
Bearing in mind all the above, and accepting that TIGHAR's hypothesis is really quite plausible, what seems to be lacking, a little, is the attempt to get into the mind of Amelia Earhart and think about what she would have done if the TIGHAR hypothesis is indeed correct.
It is almost as if TIGHARers, want to find Amelia Earhart without her help! This is in jest, to large extent, but if I were a feminist I might want to make it a feminist issue :-). It is as if the TIGHAR folk, who appear to be in the majority men, want to help a lady in distress, in spite of the fact that we are talking about a very proactive person that would have done things.
So what appears to be lacking is thought about what a intelligent, active, knowledgeable person like AE would have done. It is as if TIGHAR wants to find only her unintentional signs, the signs that she happened to have left, in spite of the fact that she would have also made intentional ones if she were there.
Some terminology. Husserl argues there are two types of signs: indications and expressions. Indications are non intentional signs, like footprints of a deer in a forest. Indications lack intent, but rely on a natural connection with that which they indicate. Expressions such as as sign post, written by a gamekeeper, saying "No hunting." These have intent, but no natural connection with what they mean. They are expressive due to their similarity to other signs in a formal system.
It is as if TIGHAR only wants to find indications left by AE, but not her expressions, to track her as if she were a deer, not a gamekeeper, even though she was a very expressive person, and at least would surely have attempted to express.
If she where there, and we are presuming that she was, she would tried to make expressive signs, signs to planes, and signs to posterity. Both. She would have been making great, frantic, intelligent, pilot-knowledgeable efforts to speak to other pilots at the time, and also, as she gave up on her rescue, to make signs those that come to find her afterwards.
One can think of reasons why she would not have been able to make signs, but at least the attempt is sine qua non: no attempt at signs, means no Amelia.
Bearing in mind the existence of tracks (indicative signs), thus of survival for enough time to produce them such unintentional forensic evidence, suggests strongly to me that, she would have been able to make expressive signs to pilots at least.
If my attempt to "get inside her head" is any good, then I would say she would also have had the motivation, time and ability to make expressive signs to us, to those that come after.
Yeah it doesn't really look like a G but it doesn't look exactly like one of AE's squiggly E's either.
Yes. I agree.
We have three plausible expressive signs.
They can be graded in terms of (1) their similarity to signs in a formal system (2) the extent to which they were intentional. I will give them my marks out of ten in each category.
1) The arrow. This seems to have the highest formal similarity. The shaft is a little wiggly but it looks a *lot* like an arrow. I give it 8 out of ten for formal similarity. Without finding cut or burnt bushes, it is difficult to judge how intentional it was, but the existence of a track leading to the A/7 (coming up next) suggests to me at least a 3 for intent.
2) The "A" is also similar to a "7." Its formal similarity is about a 5. It is natural, which may suggest lack of intent, but the choice that the castaway made in locating his/herself near to it, and its positioning with respect to the arrow suggests at least a 3 in intent too.
3) The G or E looks neither exactly like a G nor exactly like an E. Its formal similarity to the E we are hoping for about a 6. But its intentionality is a 10. It was definitely made intentionally, by a human, as a sign.
Nothing conclusive.
The G feature may not be gone, it might just be misplaced (it might be there but they just can't find it at the moment - sort of like my keys when I'm in a hurry to get to work). I find it surprising that it hasn't already been excavated, especially since it may be older than the 1941 tree planting project. What if their personal effects are under there? Or even the remains of the first one to perish? If they can find it again, hopefully they will consider excavating it.
Indeed. I agree.
I hope that future TIGHAR expeditions look at the boundaries of the arrow, and excavate near the (former?) G/E.
-
Bearing in mind all the above, and accepting that TIGHAR's hypothesis is really quite plausible, what seems to be lacking, a little, is the attempt to get into the mind of Amelia Earhart and think about what she would have done if the TIGHAR hypothesis is indeed correct.
And how do you propose getting into the mind of another person? As I've often said on the forum, but before you came aboard, "would have" is a guess masquerading as a fact. If you know something happen, say it "did" happen and show your proof. If you're guessing that something might have happened, express it as a possibility - not as something that "would have" happened. We don't know much of anything about Earhart's physical or mental condition when she was a castaway. We have almost no information about what resources and tools were available other. Sure, we can and do keep an eye out for any sign of a message or marker left behind. We also check possibilities like the "arrow" to see if there is any hard evidence there. We've speculated that she may have set up an early campsite on shore near the Electra ("Camp Zero") and we plan to investigate that possibility during Niku VIII, but we don't pretend that we can get into AE's mind.
-
Something else important - or idle doodling by a stranded person or bored islander?
I spent some time scouting around the area to see how hard it is to collect pieces of white staghorn coral - the stuff used to make the G. It's easy to find out on the ocean beach but the stuff out there is rounded and weathered. The stuff in the G has crisper edges. There is coral like the stuff in the G scattered around the inland area but you have to hunt for it. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make that feature. if I was going to start from scratch and gather enough coral to make something like that I'll bet it would take the better part of a day.
-
I wonder if the Coast Guard staked out an area where they were to not to venture out of. Maybe it was a mutual agreement with the islanders - hence the G.
Ted Campbell
-
Hi All
Ric
Do you know if the Gardner Island mentioned in this book is Gardner/Niku
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RFnnyMZy5nUC&pg=PA122&dq=gardner+island&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MJyzUe3DFI_Z0QW984GYCg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=gardner%20island&f=false
-
I like this thread, a real teaser of a challenge and, some great ideas and theories have been proposed. My stab in the dark is that we are trying to look at the mystery from an Anglo Saxon point of view. Is it a letter from the Roman/English alphabet? maybe it is from a Pacific region language/dialect? You decide.
To help here is a link to a website for Malayo-Polynesian languages...
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kiribati.htm (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kiribati.htm)
The Batak languages of northern Sumatra from the list looks quite promising for the character that is the subject of this thread. I will check the rest of the list when I get time.
Update: There are quite a few Malayo-Polynesian languages that use symbols as opposed to Roman alphabet letters. A number of these symbols do look very similar to the mark on the ground. Just a thought.
-
Maybe the "G" is a "6" with a mark above it or a 9 with a mark below to represent a Benchmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(surveying)) of 6' or 9' above sea level? Possibly from the Bushnell Survey (http://tighar.org/wiki/USS_Bushnell_Survey_(1939)), but looking at their map I don't see a notation that they set one there. Benchmarks are usually in something vertical and stable, but there may not have been alot of options to set a vertical one.
Maybe a Trig Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trig_point)?
What is the elevation in that area?
-
Hi All
Ric
Do you know if the Gardner Island mentioned in this book is Gardner/Niku
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RFnnyMZy5nUC&pg=PA122&dq=gardner+island&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MJyzUe3DFI_Z0QW984GYCg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=gardner%20island&f=false
Looks like it is Richie. Twelve mentions plus the map seems to confirm it.
-
All,
Jeff Hayden may be onto something. Is there a symbole, letter, etc. that identifies a burial site e.g. the skull in the locall language?
Ted Campbell
-
Polynesia? Trig Point? Benchmark? Why? This is the camp-site of Amelia Earhart, and there is a giant "A" arrowed, and an "E" very much like how she wrote her initial. (https://www.google.com/search?q=Amelia+Earhart+Signature&num=100&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Xe2zUcObLYbRkQWbhIHoDQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1080&bih=1643)
A.E. had a strong tendency to refer to herself and others by initials, as demonstrated by this extremely intimate letter addressed to G.P. (George Putnam) and signed A.E.
http://womensvoicesforchange.org/wednesday-5-20.htm
I am un-subscribing ("denotifying") from this thread but I wish TIGHAR every, speedy success:-)
Tim
-
Tim Takemoto,
Give us a break. Just because we don’t buy your explanation on this particular issue doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate your arguments /rationalities on other issues.
If you get so pissy because of those who don’t see it your way maybe you need to take a hard look into a “mirror” and ask why I am always the outlander.
Think about it: Would AE really use the lower case E of her name if she was trying to send a message. My guess would be a giant AE in print form.
Think about what you would do – lower case t, i,m or something more bold an recognizable i.e. TIM
Ted Campbell
-
Is the G feature a one off? or is it just that TIGHAR hasn't looked for more as until the advent of KAP they were unaware of its existence.
-
Hi all
Would be interesting to find out if the guy in the book is still alive an able to tell us anything about Gardner
Maybe one of Tighar's researches in this field would like to help on this as I wouldn't know the first thing on how to go about it
Thanks Richie
-
I have looked but can't find the way Amelia wrote the "G" in George Putnam. Could the G feature be a message from Amelia to George? I feel as some others do, that if you find the G feature again it may be worthwhile to dig there...
-
Gloria...you might want to look in the Purdue archives in correlation with Amelia. There are numerous lettersthat are written by hand. Alot of interesting documents too.
-
Found an interesting article on Gilbertese customs and traditions...
http://www.janesoceania.com/kiribati_cultural_traditions/ (http://www.janesoceania.com/kiribati_cultural_traditions/)
One or two involve skulls and circles like The Kabubu first-fruits ritual for example. Not sure of the availability of rocks on gardner island but, the coral circle and coconuts wouldn't be a problem. The photograph at the bottom you can just make out the circle of coral surrounding the centrepiece and in the middle image a circle of pebbles?. Here's a few images from said ritual...
(http://)
-
There seems to be a lot of skull removing in Glilbertese tradition. So if a skeleton were to be found by them on Gardner?
Quote from the previous article: 'The space within the circle was dressed with white shingle, and therein were buried the skulls of successive generations of clan elders, all males. The crania of the skulls remained uncovered by shingle, so that they might be anointed with oil on occasions when the cult of the ancestral deity was being observed. Care was taken to avoid burying any skulls due west of the boua, as this portion of the circle was reserved for food offerings.'
The practice for their elder relatives, once they had passed away of course, was to remove the skull and keep it on a shelf in the home ???
Footnote: And fire...
Quote: 'Tabakea in myth was the father of Na Areau as well as Auriaria, and throughout the Gilbert Islands he is closely associated with the origin of fire. There is also evidence to show that he was one of the gods of the aboriginal race - the dark-skinned people who were settled in the Gilberts before the fairer people from the West invaded them. The invocation of Tabakea came nearer to the idea of a tribal cult than any other. It was resorted to on occasions of stress, disease or necessity, when not only a single utu, but a group of utu allied for political or warlike purposes, felt the approach of common danger.'
-
Thanks Jeff, had forgotten about this site.
This is interesting!
From May to September the main sources of fresh water, apart from a few brackish wells, were squalls which from time to time came stalking over the east4ernh horizon, trailing great curtains of rain. When a squall was seen approaching, the islanders had other preoccupations. There was always great excitement - due partly to a natural awe (for the Gilbertese (I-Kiribati) a rain cloud, like everything else, had a life and purpose of its own), partly to speculation about which end of the lagoon it would cross and whether there was time to reach it before the rain passed. There would be a rush to load canoes with nuts, gourds, tins, clam shells and old sails to catch water in.
but of course nothing to do with the 'G'
-
There seems to be a lot of skull removing in Glilbertese tradition. So if a skeleton were to be found by them on Gardner?
The original Gilbertese settlers on Gardner Island were Christian - Congregationalist and Roman Catholic - but, of course, with an overlay of ancient tradition. We know what they did with the skull they found. They buried it. This seems to have happened in late April 1940. I think we can be quite sure that the other bones were not found until Gallagher arrived, heard the story about the skull, and investigated further in September.
-
Jeff H,
are you suggesting that the 'G' feature is another skull location as TIGHAR thinks they have the skull hole located at the 7 site and have dug it. To my mind if the natives had dug a hole for the skull and decorated it with coral when it was dug up again the feature would have been somewhat disturbed?
-
Who knows Chris?
The point is that people like to keep their traditions and culture and I wouldn't be surprised if the Gilbertese carried on with their customs and traditions, British Empire or not. The location of the G feature and seven site away from Callaghers 'head office' lends itself to this possibility.
-
The location of the G feature and seven site away from Callaghers 'head office' lends itself to this possibility.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Jeff, but Gallagher had not established a 'head office' at the time the skull was discovered by the colonists (ca. April 1940; Gallagher took up residence “Early” September, 1940 -- according to The Bones Chronology research document (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html)). And, even if he had been in residence at the time of the discovery, they seem to have just buried it when and where they found it (rather than seemingly to distance themselves from a British administrator).
-
Indeed Bruce it is true. Not implying in any way that the famous skeleton and skull of Gardner Island was buried by the Gilbertese, merely that the separating of skull from rest of skeleton, then subsequent burial/partial burial of skull is a Gilbertese tradition. As was the setting of fires in times of great stress and, coral circles.
I notice that was exactly what they did on discovering the skeleton...
(a) Skeleton was not buried – skull was buried after discovery by natives (coconut crabs had scattered many bones),
Just noting that old traditions die hard.
-
A rather pleasing insight into the mind of Harry Maude 1906 - 2006.
"Professor Maude is remembered fondly by Gilbertese for his concern for maintenance and incorporation of local cultural principles into the new administrative procedures, rather than imposing the dictates of colonial policy, as his forerunners had done. In fact he reworded some of Grimble’s regulations, such as those on adoption, family obligations and uses of eating and sleeping houses, to reflect Gilbertese customary law, rather than British colonial law. His reform of local government led to the establishment in l946 of Island Councils, Island Courts, and Land Courts, all of which reflected local administrative procedures, though Island Council members were elected."
http://www.asao.org/pacific/honoraryf/maude.htm (http://www.asao.org/pacific/honoraryf/maude.htm)
-
I notice in the newly discovered tin box of photos, there is a linear line of clearing in one of the images. Is this the same clearing as at the Seven site or slightly further south?
Quite a bit further south. Whether it's actually a line of clearing will have to wait until we see the negative.
-
I think a lot of things are going to have to wait until Jeff Glickman has a go at the negatives, because they will be the ultimate arbiter. Jeff will be able to tell if something on the negative was something actually on the ground at Niku, or ... just a bit of crap on the film.
LTM, who remembers his darkroom days,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Yeah...What all you guys said !
(and don't forget that "G" which is really an Earhart "E" !?!)
All in a row north to south...
Bill
-
Hi
I also advanced the hypothesis several years ago (from New Zealand) that the 7 was indeed an A. There was little vegetation at that time so the argument from TIGHAR that it took a lot of time to clear relates to their own experience and does not provide proof. Also the arrow has never been explained. The more interesting point is that I have found what I think is the Electra wheel section and landing gear in one of the RNZAF photographs. I have corroborated that location with other evidence and it fits perfectly.
Chris :)
-
The more interesting point is that I have found what I think is the Electra wheel section and landing gear in one of the RNZAF photographs. I have corroborated that location with other evidence and it fits perfectly.
Chris :)
No need to be coy, Chris. Why not share a marked-up copy of the relevant photo and describe your evidence? Others would surely like to see what it is that you think you see.
-
Don't worry - I am talking with the chap at the RNZAF museum to obtain a digitally enhanced version of the negative and photograph and then to get it analyzed by the NZ Government if warranted. If that turns out positive then the next port of call will be the US Embassy and your State Department.
cheers from Ardmore Aerodrome
NZ
chris
-
Don't worry - I am talking with the chap at the RNZAF museum to obtain a digitally enhanced version of the negative and photograph and then to get it analyzed by the NZ Government if warranted.
I'm sure the museum will be as helpful to you as they have been to others who have contacted them since we announced the discovery of the photos. I'm curious about what kind of digital enhancement you expect the museum to provide.
If that turns out positive then the next port of call will be the US Embassy and your State Department.
Positive in what respect? And what would you expect the U.S. State Department to do?
-
Look at the photos below. The first one is the one that we've had for a long time. It has hand-drawn arrows and was probably part of some report. The mysterious "arrow" appears a few hundred meters up the coast line beyond the clearly visible Seven Site. In the recently discovered un-cropped contact print of the same photo, the "arrow" is not present but there are other white flecks that do not appear in the other print. Both of these photos were printed from the same negative. We've been chasing a ghost. There never was an "arrow." All of the white marks are nothing more than dust on the negative or lens.
-
OMG there's a 'Halloween' mask in the bottom left corner :P
Sorry i'll go now :(
-
Well,.... Drat, Ric !!
Back to the 'Earhart E' !
And Dr.Ohms; Are we in some kind of race ??
Bill (used to be a Pilot)
-
The more interesting point is that I have found what I think is the Electra wheel section and landing gear in one of the RNZAF photographs. I have corroborated that location with other evidence and it fits perfectly.
Chris :)
Chris, what other evidence?
-
Been lurking for a while - first post... PS - this forum has the toughest captcha I've ever come across ;)
It's amazing how this mystery is been solved by piecing together the most unlikely evidence - each portion on it's own almost unbelievable. And the faith of some amazing people stitching it all together... thanks.
2 cents- I can't imagine someone writing a message to be seen from the air and deciding to do it in their handwriting... the "E" makes zero sense to me.
PPS - seriously - I can't solve this captcha! :)
-
Been lurking for a while - first post... PS - this forum has the toughest captcha I've ever come across ;)
...
PPS - seriously - I can't solve this captcha! :)
Sorry about that. If you want to look into better captcha add-ons for Simple Machines Forum, let me know what you find. I think we require a captcha solution for your first three posts after registering. Then things should become more friendly for you. ;)
-
Been lurking for a while - first post... PS - this forum has the toughest captcha I've ever come across ;)
It's amazing how this mystery is been solved by piecing together the most unlikely evidence - each portion on it's own almost unbelievable. And the faith of some amazing people stitching it all together... thanks.
2 cents- I can't imagine someone writing a message to be seen from the air and deciding to do it in their handwriting... the "E" makes zero sense to me.
PPS - seriously - I can't solve this captcha! :)
Hi Chris- Welcome! :)
I, too, have been lurking a while. I completely agree with you. The G Feature does not resemble an E to me either.
When I saw it, my first thought was that is was a map of the island. It reminded me of something that would have been created by someone who had a general idea of the shape of the island and had explored the island by foot.
It's that big 'head thing' that keeps bringing me back to the shape of the island. That particular part of the 'G Feature' is similar to the location of the Norwich City and the potential landing strip.
Taking the leap that it is a map of the island, I wonder if at one time there were darker 'markers' on the map itself (kind of like 'X' marks the spot). Perhaps markers were indicating the location of Camp Zero, the Seven Site, the plane, etc. Of course this is all conjecture and takes me right back to the beginning of my post. I just don't think it's an "E".
And to address the subject of the thread... I don't think the 7 is an A. In my opinion, even if this site was used by the castaways it was a camp, not a signal to airplanes.
LTM who still searches for the hidden treasure,
Stacy
-
"not a signal to airplanes"
I'm sure it has been commented on before Stacy somewhere in the forum that we have all made the assumption, at some stage, that they were expecting to be spotted/rescued from the air. They knew there were no planes in that area of the Pacific, at that time, so would they not be preparing for rescue by signalling a ship at sea rather than the air option, which didn't exist at that time, only later?
-
They knew there were no planes in that area of the Pacific, at that time, so would they not be preparing for rescue by signalling a ship at sea rather than the air option, which didn't exist at that time, only later?
This all comes back to the question of whether they were able to receive news reports about the search.
-
Maybe I'm wrong but I can't believe there had been no discussions about possible sources of rescue before the flight...
The Lexington is/was an *Aircraft * Carrier....As I've said, one of my earliest memories is seeing it leave California, and being told by my mother "It's going to go look for Amelia Earhart"...
I have been involved in finding people ...and even more times in just picking people up on schedule from a beach.
I used to drop off Fish & Game personel at one spot on a beach and then pick them up at a later stage of the tide in a different spot on the beach... they are really hard to see even if they are waving.
We finally developed a routine of throwing a rock in the water when they saw me overhead...big white splash next to the line of the beach much more effective than waving coats or arms !
As for "assuming"...people drown while others sit in offices and "assume"!?!
If I am lost, do not assume how I will spell my name ...look for Anything that says Human Being !
People "can only last so long in the water" ...
(story alert!) I have found people floating in the water up to their necks in the ocean on a November night ..in Alaska..hanging onto the edge of their boat and shining a flashlight!
They lasted 45 minutes ; long enough to get a boat to them which grabbed them just as the boat they were hanging onto went under.
I asked them how they did it and they said they just but on all the clothes they had and hung on...I said how did they feel...they said "Really tired"
I had heard them give the mayday just as the boat sank,and then had to argue with the other guy in the office about whether they were really where they thought they were...He was the guy I was flying for at the time Air Taxi..wheel planes..and I finally said
"I'm taking a plane and looking where they said"....and sure enough they were just around the corner where the tide had carried them.
It was 20 foot seas that night and the boat had come down on a big log on a swell...The other guy in the office was drinking...He's long gone now.
There were no immersion suits in those days...
After that I used to swim in 45 degree water just to see how I could do...that was the water temp on the 4th of July that year and i lasted 45 minutes, off an island where we were picnicking...but that was 30 years ago !
I have used heroic restraint not to tell "War Stories" but you understand my frustration, maybe, ...
In a room full of people there will be a lot of theories ...it's one thing to decide what you have found; quite another to decide what you *might* or *should* find...or where!
Well, Shoot...enough said !
To NZ !! (and look at that surf line !?!)
Bill
-
I do believe they did what they could to attract attention to themselves. I would think they left signals that could be seen via air and sea. If they were able, then they probably built several signs/signals.
Many others on this forum, have said AE and FN may have used debris to build a signal on the beach, may have 'painted' SOS on Norwich City, etc. I personally believe they did everything they could to attract attention to any potential rescuer (air and sea).
I just don't believe the seven site was intentially made into an "A" as a signal. I believe if they were on the seven site then it was used as a camp area. Of course this is all conjecture and my personal opinion. AE and FN could have spent hours/days creating an A to draw attention to themselves. It would be interesting to research stories from the 1930's and see what the perception was of how people behaved while stranded on islands. That peek into the past may give us some more clues into what the norms were during that time.
This past weekend I spent some time in antique stores searching for books dated early 1900s. I wanted to see if I could find a story that had been written about a scenario similar to the one AE and FN may have encountered (being marooned on a deserted island). I didn't find any. I will keep searching. I am intrigued by how explorers from the 1930's would behave in such a situation.
LTM who loves old books,
Stacy
-
This past weekend I spent some time in antique stores searching for books dated early 1900s. I wanted to see if I could find a story that had been written about a scenario similar to the one AE and FN may have encountered (being marooned on a deserted island). I didn't find any. I will keep searching. I am intrigued by how explorers from the 1930's would behave in such a situation.
The classic, of course, is "Robinson Crusoe" - read by school children and very likely by AE as a girl. Crusoe explored his island for resources and for the best place to live where he would have "a view to the sea" to watch for ships.
-
In the Lambrecht Photo (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht_Photo.html) it looks like a "7" was already there only a few days after the last credible signals. Seems like the seven is natural based on that. Maybe shortcut paths made it look like an "A" or the camp itself? On purpose or accidently? Can't wait to see the new photos of that area to get a closer look at what may be paths from it.
Edit: See Big Ren tree (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6dailiesweek1.html) relation to the "7"
-
This past weekend I spent some time in antique stores searching for books dated early 1900s. I wanted to see if I could find a story that had been written about a scenario similar to the one AE and FN may have encountered (being marooned on a deserted island). I didn't find any. I will keep searching. I am intrigued by how explorers from the 1930's would behave in such a situation.
The classic, of course, is "Robinson Crusoe" - read by school children and very likely by AE as a girl. Crusoe explored his island for resources and for the best place to live where he would have "a view to the sea" to watch for ships.
Perfect example! :) Even as I continue to search out more oldies-but-goodies I may pull out my battered copy of Robinson Crusoe and spend a comfortable evening or two re-reading it :)
LTM who re-reads lots of things,
Stacy
-
In a room full of people there will be a lot of theories ...it's one thing to decide what you have found; quite another to decide what you *might* or *should* find...or where!
I'm with you Bill. Truth is stranger than fiction. Not only do we find time and time again that people do things that we think are bizarre, and things we would never do, but how many times have we all done something dumb then later thought what in the world was I thinking? (Like Ric handling the fecal matter found at the Seven Site--sorry, Ric). You can say, "I would never do this", or, "I'm sure I would do that", but in truth until you are actually in that moment you never know. That's why it makes me a bit crazy when I read forum posters saying, "well, 'such and such' did or didn't happen, so therefore AE and FN were never at Gardner Island. And I'm sure that if AE was pounding a coconut against a tree stump to get it open and missed the first few minutes of the sound of the Lambrecht flyover, as many times as many of you say, "why wasn't she just sitting by a brush pile with FN's lighter ready to go", I'm sure she thought it, too...over and over again herself...and was probably from there on ready for the next flyover or ship...which never came.
Just to throw out my thoughts on the matter, I'm with you Stacy, I don't think it is likely (but you never know) that the Seven is a man (or woman)-made A, mostly because the seven was already there in the earlier photos.
-
In a room full of people there will be a lot of theories ...it's one thing to decide what you have found; quite another to decide what you *might* or *should* find...or where!
I'm with you Bill. Truth is stranger than fiction. Not only do we find time and time again that people do things that we think are bizarre, and things we would never do, but how many times have we all done something dumb then later thought what in the world was I thinking? (Like Ric handling the fecal matter found at the Seven Site--sorry, Ric). You can say, "I would never do this", or, "I'm sure I would do that", but in truth until you are actually in that moment you never know. That's why it makes me a bit crazy when I read forum posters saying, "well, 'such and such' did or didn't happen, so therefore AE and FN were never at Gardner Island. And I'm sure that if AE was pounding a coconut against a tree stump to get it open and missed the first few minutes of the sound of the Lambrecht flyover, as many times as many of you say, "why wasn't she just sitting by a brush pile with FN's lighter ready to go", I'm sure she thought it, too...over and over again herself...and was probably from there on ready for the next flyover or ship...which never came.
Just to throw out my thoughts on the matter, I'm with you Stacy, I don't think it is likely (but you never know) that the Seven is a man (or woman)-made A, mostly because the seven was already there in the earlier photos.
I, too, think AE just wasn't able to get Lambrecht's attention for some reason. I'm sure she and FN did everything they thought they should do in this situation.
Personally, I think that they thought rescue was a sure thing- at least during the first few days.
If they were able, they would have built signals- some more permanent than others- to draw attention to themselves. If nothing else, they may have thought that the plane itself would draw attention to them.
Neither AE or FN had any idea what the plane looked like from the sky once it washed away during high tide. If the plane wreckage remained near (per stories recounted by the future island inhabitants), then AE and FN may have thought the wreckage itself would draw attention- along with any signs they had built on the island.
It is very difficult to know what anyone would do in this situation. These days we have the Internet, instant communication, and knowledge exchanged from all over the world. Back then countries were more isolated from each other, tropical islands were exotic and far away, and most people had very little experience outside of their own home towns. AE and FN had traveled the world, so they had experienced other cultures but that still doesn't tell us what they would have done on a deserted island.
So, yes, we cannot say "I would never... " or "I can't believe they didn't...", because we just don't know what influenced their decisions to do or not do something.
LTM who decides to decide,
Stacy
-
I think it's a very good idea to ask what AE/FNs mindset was.
My dad has a collection of books on explorers and adventurers from late 40s/early50s that I used to read as a girl. I actually think some of these must have been translations of American books because there was lots of stuff about people like Admiral Byrd and Charles Lindbergh and that's also how I came to be aware of Amelia Earhart. :)
I think all those books (which of course cannot have been read by AE as a girl) basically said the same things about what to do if you get lost: Look for shelter. Find water and look for food. Pile up lots of dry wood so you can start a fire to make sure you get noticed when a ship/plane passes by.
I've always wondered what Ltd. Lambrecht meant with "signs of previous habitation" and "markers of some kind". I imagine he must have seen something rather unspecific because otherwise he'd have been more specific in his report (e.g. "I saw a dilapidated hut but nobody came out waving so I concluded that nobody was there" or "Someone had painted a big S.O.S. on the the shipwreck but there was no one around to rescue"). I think he may have seen piles of wood that AE/FN piled up on the beach to light if they saw a ship/plane. A pile of wood is something that usually doesn't get there accidentially, and it's also a "marker of some kind". However if no one comes out and lights it you might just conclude that whoever piled up the wood wasn't there any more.
That's just a "could have", thought, of course.
-
And I always wondered why Lambrecht, who spoke of "signs of previous habitation" on an uninhabited island, wasn't told to go back and have a second look. Maybe, without the "Norwich City"sitting on the beach, the "signs of previous habitation" would have been the key to find AE and FN alive.
-
I think re what actions they may have taken; to them their greatest way of reaching rescue would have been the radio and at that time there was a clear and obvious signal to be seen - the Electra sitting on the reef. There may have been no immediate reason to make any other signal as anyone flying over the island would have seen it.
They simply may not have expected the Electra to be washed away or may have assumed a quick rescue would happen.
-
I wonder about that because of the obvious radio trouble AE/FN had. Lae heard her for the first time four hours after she'd left (I wonder if there's anything to indicate that she heard Lae?). Itasca heard her but apparently AE didn't hear them most of the time. In that kind of situation, it must have been far from clear that Itasca heard the " 157/337" message. "Here, put your ear to it" in Betty's notebook also seems to indicate that FN (possibly, AE too) had doubts about anyone hearing their distress calls. In that case, they may have realized that they couldn't expect anyone to know in which direction they'd been headed and in which region they might have landed. AE doesn't seem to have been too sure about where she was (cf. the "NYC"/possibly "Norwich City" message). In this kind of situation, I wouldn't want to rely on the radio alone. (another "would have"-speculation...)
-
I agree, but I think from their point of view the radio would still be their best bet. Visual signs would have been covered with the presence of the Electra, so the radio was just one extra possibility of reaching someone. That would have changed of course when the Electra was lost to the surf.
-
The Coffee Royal Affair http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBJxB9hHryU
It gives some insight on spotting downed aircraft from the air. The smoke signals weren't as visible as expected.
-
Great video Bob. It highlights some of the points we try to make regarding survival. Landing near freshwater saved the Southern Cross crew, not so lucky for the Kookabura crew though. This was vital when working to be rescued, be it lighting and maintaining fires or clearing scrub. It's not as easy to make drinkable water as some people would have us believe.
-
One of the thoughts that came to my mind after watching the video... The pilot of the Southern Cross ordered everyone to the rear of the plane for tailweight(hopefully to lessen the chance of a nose over landing) when they were about to make a soggy landing. Maybe FN's possible head injury could be attributed to AE ordering him to the rear of the Electra in order to make a better landing on the reef? Maybe not a new thought but a new one for me :)
-
The pilot of the Southern Cross ordered everyone to the rear of the plane for tailweight(hopefully to lessen the chance of a nose over landing) when they were about to make a soggy landing. Maybe FN's possible head injury could be attributed to AE ordering him to the rear of the Electra in order to make a better landing on the reef?
Thanks for that link. I thought the same thing, Bob. I also thought it interesting that the signal mirror would be so important, a good reason TIGHAR found the compact mirror at the seven site. I also saw parallels between the stranded crew and AE and FN: that they had matches and a pocket knife (at least we know that FN had a lighter), and that they left important survival equipment behind to have more room for fuel. It was also interesting to see that the second missing crew, found dead of lack of water, left a diary written on their plane. I wonder if when (not if!) TIGHAR finds the plane they may find etchings of some sort on it.
-
And I always wondered why Lambrecht, who spoke of "signs of previous habitation" on an uninhabited island, wasn't told to go back and have a second look.
Lambrecht did not know that Gardner Island was uninhabited: his report states that "... repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there." Perhaps nobody else associated with the search knew either.
And his report does suggest he was looking for the missing plane, not people. So would the presence of people have attracted particular interest?
-
Paul, I think if Lambrecht had seen people he would have tried to land and talk to them, as he did at Hull Island - it's always a good idea to check with the locals if you're looking for something.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 CER
-
What is interesting is that whatever Lambrecht saw, markers or some such, it caused him to "circle and zoom" in an attempt to "elicit an an answering wave from possible inhabitants".
Whatever he did see, it was enough to convince him that there were people there he should try to connect with.
Andrew
-
Whatever he did see, it was enough to convince him that there were people there he should try to connect with.
My hope is that the new photos will show the remnants of the Arundel buildings, for they would surely have given the Navy flyers the impression the island was inhabited.
-
Whatever he did see, it was enough to convince him that there were people there he should try to connect with.
My hope is that the new photos will show the remnants of the Arundel buildings, for they would surely have given the Navy flyers the impression the island was inhabited.
It would certainly go some way to suggest that if they are on the photo's then that could be what the Navy Flyers saw and interpreted.
-
Whatever he did see, it was enough to convince him that there were people there he should try to connect with.
My hope is that the new photos will show the remnants of the Arundel buildings, for they would surely have given the Navy flyers the impression the island was inhabited.
I wonder if their condition would indicate "recent habitation"
-
Just out of curiosity and to get a better feeling for what the island is like, have TIGHAR ever found anything recognizably Arundel? Or any buildings outsinde the village, e.g. on the settlers' plots (where the settlers are described as having "weekend houses")? From what I've read, e.g. about the condition you found the village in 25 years after the last settlers had left, it seems to me that anything left around deteriorates or gets grown over very, very quickly, so I wonder if buildings etc. from the Arundel's time would still have been recognizable as "signs of recent habitation" after almost 40 years? (Maybe the 1938 photographs will show).
Also, while huts are "signs of habitation", why would anyone trying to describe what he saw many years later call them "markers of some kind"?
-
Just out of curiosity and to get a better feeling for what the island is like, have TIGHAR ever found anything recognizably Arundel?
No. There's a tumbled-down structure on Nutiran strewn with old liquor bottles that may be the "European style house" mentioned by former residents who were there in the 1950s, but nothing that can be clearly attributed to Arundel. It was probably a work shed for the clearing and planting operations. "European style" means only that it had timber framing and was not constructed of local materials.
Or any buildings outsinde the village, e.g. on the settlers' plots (where the settlers are described as having "weekend houses")?
No, but those would probably be made from palm fronds, etc. and would disappear after a few years.
Also, while huts are "signs of habitation", why would anyone trying to describe what he saw many years later call them "markers of some kind"?
I agree. When Lambrecht see huts on Sydney Island he calls them huts.